' Ghulam Muhammad, former Sub-Inspector has assailed the orders of Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, dated 5-12-2000, whereby he was dismissed from service with immediate effect as well as the order of Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, dated 29-11-2001 and that of the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, dated 31-10-2002, declining to interfere in the order of the authority.
2. Appellant while serving as Sub-Inspector, Police Post Madina Town. P.S. Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, was given the following show-cause notice on 13-10-2000:-- "You apprehended Zahid Sarfraz alias Billu in case F.I.R. No, 527, dated 12-8-2000 under section , 302, P.P.C. P.S. Peoples Colony with the active connivance of Zahida Parveen (w/o complainant) and gave him severe physical torture. As a result of which he expired in police custody on 11-10- 2000 and case F.I.R. No,680, dated 11-10-2000 under sections. 302/342/109/34, P.P.C. P.S. Peoples Colony has been registered against you and others.
' You have committed a heinous crime by exceeding your official powers as such liable for disciplinary action beside criminal proceedings."
' Since the criminal case under sections, 302/342/109/34, P.P.C. Was registered against the appellant on 11-10-2000 vide F.I.R. 680, with Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, he was taken in custody on 14-10-2000, therefore, he neither gave reply to the show-cause notice nor put appearance in person before the authority, as such, impugned order was passed, which is subject- matter of the present appeal.
' Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the criminal case was registered against the appellant was later on converted to sections 322, 337-K read with section 34, P.P.C. And on 26-3- 2002 appellant was acquitted under section 345 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the heirs of the deceased having forgiven the appellant for the alleged murder of Zahid Sarfraz alias Billu.
Alluding to the disciplinary proceedings, learned counsel contended with vehemence that appellant was proceeded by his authority in a highly illegal manner while passing the impugned order which was not taken note by either the appellate or the revisional authority causing a great miscarriage of justice for which reason the order has to reversed. Learned District Attorney, on the other hand, assisted by the Departmental Representative present with record, supported the impugned orders.
4. I have considered the arguments of the respective counsel and have also gone through the record.
5. The show-cause notice was issued on 13-10-2000 and before it could be served on the appellant, he was taken in custody due to the registration of the criminal case through F.I.R. 680, on 14-10- 2000. The certified copies of the remand papers indicate that the competent Court of law allowed physical remand from 15-10-2000 upto 24-10-2000 vide two separate orders, whereafter, appellant was confined in judicial lockup from 24-10-2000 till the grant of bail by a competent Court of law on 9-12-2000. The observation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, in his order dated 5-12-2000 that the appellant was served with the show-cause notice on 16-10-2000 is incorrect, as well as further observation that the appellant failed to appear before him in the orderly room and when the impugned order was passed on 5-12-2000, the appellant was incarcerated in jail, therefore, it was impossible for him to make appearance before his authority before whom the disciplinary matter was heard. Appellant was, therefore, proceeded in absentia illegally. The effect of this ex parte order dismissing him from service was passed without granting him an opportunity of hearing violating his right of natural justice. Subsequent order passed by Deputy Inspector- General of Police, Faisalabad, and Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, failing to note this gross irregularity also suffered from the same defect.
6. Resultantly, order of Senior Superintendent of Police, Faisalabad, dated 5-12-2000, that of Deputy Inspector-General of police, Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad, dated 29-11-2001 and finally of the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, dated 31-10-2002 are set aside and quashed by accepting the appeal of the appellant. Appellant shall be reinstated in service, however, period intervening between his dismissal from service and reinstatement shall be treated as leave of the kind due.